In response to 10 pints: Can a rational argument be made for a Creator?

[Necrosis]

And here is where the mutual frustration begins. This is also an example where I believe it is not intelligence that is the deciding factor but perspective and world view.

To me it makes perfect sense. It's been established by science that the universe, time and matter, had a beginning. The law of causality states that something, which is time and matter, has to have a cause. A cause that exist outside of time and matter.

We are at an impasse.

Again we see things from an entirely different perspective. You consider eternity to be timeless in the sense that there is no time. I consider eternity to endless time. Like numbers, it goes on forever.



BTW, I don't recall off the top of my head where I made any reference at all to eternity. Can you quote me where I have?

I know you are frustrated and even angry. I use to get that way. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. Disagreement will always be there. We just have to live it.

You need to brush up on your terms and science my friend, outside of space and time is eternity, a timeless state. You are using the terms incoherently here.

The law of causality certainly does not state a cause outside of time an space is the cause for everything, funny you ask for references but are simply using terms, very broad ones at that, to support your argument.

It's not a law if it requires itself to be broken in order to work, that makes no sense. The law of causality is not real, you know this right? you realize it's a philosophical argument? quantum mechanics does not behave in a cause effect manner (it's not binary action reaction) and this is where you are jumping the shark.

Science does not say all of space and time had a beginning, that would mean at one point nothing existed, if we stick to your premise, nothing could not exist for we have something. It expanded from a SINGULARITY.

[Necrosis]

It gratuitously diminishes my post by saying I'm just "saying" Einstein therefore it's scientific. I reference his General Theory of Relativity and it's implications regarding matter and time.

I didn't break the law of causality. I made no attempt to prove the existence of God. To call something a Creator is very specific. To call something a God opens a Pandora's box.

The Creator isn't a side step to the law of causality because a Creator exist outside of time.

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.

I simply disagree. The Big Bang was a creation. It could have started as a singularity just as an explosion started out as a grenade. It still begs the question
 who made the grenade, who started the singularity?



I don't why you think it's more rational that a singularity always existed but not a Creator. That's why these eventually come to matters of faith. Neither can be proven but one can use his knowledge and intelligence to determine what makes more sense. I appeal to the scientifically accepted belief that nothing

moves without a reason.

Perhaps you can write a post showing how something came from nothing based on modern science.

Will you do it?

it was not an explosion, for all we know, are you are acting as if cosmology is set, it is a cycle of big bang and big contraction, meaning no beginning needed.

Who made the grenade maker and so on.

Nothing exists outside of time and space, give me one example and we can end the argument. Just one testable attribute, one variable, it should be easy as it's scientific.

[pellius]

You need to brush up on your terms and science my friend, outside of space and time is eternity, a timeless state. You are using the terms incoherently here.

The law of causality certainly does not state a cause outside of time an space is the cause for everything, funny you ask for references but are simply using terms, very broad ones at that, to support your argument.

It's not a law if it requires itself to be broken in order to work, that makes no sense. The law of causality is not real, you know this right? you realize it's a philosophical argument? quantum mechanics does not behave in a cause effect manner (it's not binary action reaction) and this is where you are jumping the shark.

Science does not say all of space and time had a beginning, that would mean at one point nothing existed, if we stick to your premise, nothing could not exist for we have something. It expanded from a SINGULARITY.

You're just wrong. The age of the universe has been established.

We're at an impasse.

Perhaps you can start a thread on how the universe was created using modern main stream science. Where did the singularity come from?

Causality: The relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics.

Eternity: infinite time; duration without beginning or end. (Like numbers, the example I gave.)

OK, I feel I am "brushed up". BTW, I don't see where I ever used the term "eternity" or "timeless" in my original post.

[pellius]

it was not an explosion, for all we know, are you are acting as if cosmology is set, it is a cycle of big bang and big contraction, meaning no beginning needed.

Who made the grenade maker and so on.

Nothing exists outside of time and space, give me one example and we can end the argument. Just one testable attribute, one variable, it should be easy as it's scientific.

I don't think the term "Big Bang" was coined for no reason. The universe is expanding at a rapid rate. Just like a bang -- an explosion.

I already gave you an example and painstakingly presented arguments for it. The Creator.

[Necrosis]

You're just wrong. The age of the universe has been established.

We're at an impasse.

Perhaps you can start a thread on how the universe was created using modern main stream science. Where did the singularity come from?

Causality: The relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. Causality is also a topic studied from the perspectives of philosophy and statistics.

Eternity: infinite time; duration without beginning or end. (Like numbers, the example I gave.)





OK, I feel I am "brushed up". BTW, I don't see where I ever used the term "eternity" or "timeless" in my original post.

Let's reorganize this if you wouldn't mind so we can stick to claims since you are taking the time to address me.

Where did you get that definition. Infinite is a magnitude or amount concept like the size of space, while eternity is a temporal term, time has no size, it's not infinite in that sense. Eternity would be timeless, not an infinite amount of time, it would be without time. zero. That's why when you say what was BEFORE the big bang it is non-sensical, as before requires time, two events, one pre-ceeding the other. This is the confusion others keep pointing out, if there is no time, there is no cause and effect relationship, as cause comes BEFORE effect, a temporal relationship.


The logical conclusion is that energy or matter is in fact eternal, this avoids the infinite regress, the one in which you presuppose a creator outside of this regress to satisfy it's conclusion. If the universe is eternal, no need for a cause, it just is. You want to go one step further and suggest that while something must be eternal (this is aquinas argument, something exists, of which the essence is existence) it has to be a creator, that adds more complexity then needed, it muddies the question.




Why does the singularity need a cause?

[Man of Steel]

Let's reorganize this if you wouldn't mind so we can stick to claims since you are taking the time to address me.

Where did you get that definition. Infinite is a magnitude or amount concept like the size of space, while eternity is a temporal term, time has no size, it's not infinite in that sense. Eternity would be timeless, not an infinite amount of time, it would be without time. zero. That's why when you say what was BEFORE the big bang it is non-sensical, as before requires time, two events, one pre-ceeding the other. This is the confusion others keep pointing out, if there is no time, there is no cause and effect relationship, as cause comes BEFORE effect, a temporal relationship.


The logical conclusion is that energy or matter is in fact eternal, this avoids the infinite regress, the one in which you presuppose a creator outside of this regress to satisfy it's conclusion. If the universe is eternal, no need for a cause, it just is. You want to go one step further and suggest that while something must be eternal (this is aquinas argument, something exists, of which the essence is existence) it has to be a creator, that adds more complexity then needed, it muddies the question.




Why does the singularity need a cause?

This is my favorite part of this argument.   The universe "just is" and energy and matter are eternal...uncaused.

[pellius]

Let's reorganize this if you wouldn't mind so we can stick to claims since you are taking the time to address me.

Where did you get that definition. Infinite is a magnitude or amount concept like the size of space, while eternity is a temporal term, time has no size, it's not infinite in that sense. Eternity would be timeless, not an infinite amount of time, it would be without time. zero. That's why when you say what was BEFORE the big bang it is non-sensical, as before requires time, two events, one pre-ceeding the other. This is the confusion others keep pointing out, if there is no time, there is no cause and effect relationship, as cause comes BEFORE effect, a temporal relationship.


The logical conclusion is that energy or matter is in fact eternal, this avoids the infinite regress, the one in which you presuppose a creator outside of this regress to satisfy it's conclusion. If the universe is eternal, no need for a cause, it just is. You want to go one step further and suggest that while something must be eternal (this is aquinas argument, something exists, of which the essence is existence) it has to be a creator, that adds more complexity then needed, it muddies the question.

I looked it up (Define Eternity) on google. But again, since I never mentioned the word eternity then I don't want to belabor the point.

Why does the singularity need a cause?

It doesn't. But you just have to reject the laws of causality. If you want to claim that the singularity always existed and thus the singularity is the Creator then fair play. But that would imply that the singularity existed outside of space and time which does not comport with what I conceive to be a singularity (which could be wrong). But I don't know why that is anymore rational and likely than arguing for a Creator.

[pellius]

This is my favorite part of this argument.   The universe "just is" and energy and matter are eternal...uncaused.

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."

-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There

[Necrosis]

This is my favorite part of this argument.   The universe "just is" and energy and matter are eternal...uncaused.

That's the point, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it exists.

Saying what exists always has is not a stretch, suggesting a sentient being is creating universes out of magic is.

[Necrosis]

I don't think the term "Big Bang" was coined for no reason. The universe is expanding at a rapid rate. Just like a bang -- an explosion.

I already gave you an example and painstakingly presented arguments for it. The Creator.

It wasn't an explosion, you are being silly, the term bang has no bearing on the math of the theory,it's a mathematical theory.

None of the arguments were pain staking, you presented Aquinas and his rebutted rehashed argument, keep making these broad sweeping arguments that have no water, like serious, the term bang wasn't coined for nothing! can you explain anything you are talking about? you just keep saying science and using terms, which you keep mixing up.

[Necrosis]

I looked it up (Define Eternity) on google. But again, since I never mentioned the word eternity then I don't want to belabor the point.

It doesn't. But you just have to reject the laws of causality. If you want to claim that the singularity always existed and thus the singularity is the Creator then fair play. But that would imply that the singularity existed outside of space and time which does not comport with what I conceive to be a singularity (which could be wrong). But I don't know why that is anymore rational and likely than arguing for a Creator.

The law of causality is rejected in your premise as well, why are you allowed to side step your "LAW"? you also realize that expansion was acceleration, this is not an effect as per general relativity, no cause needed, hence the expansion needs no cause.

Your insistence on something existing outside of time and space is odd, give me one example of something that exists outside of time and space, one I can verify..... it's a philosophical argument, not scientific.

[Necrosis]

"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."

-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There

why is there anything? where did it come from? everything needs a cause right? it sure does, god did it son.

Who made god.... no one.... logic.

[10pints]

But that's just you theorizing and Kantian philosophizing. Nothing is based on any mainstream, modern, scientific principles.

I believe philosophy is all you can turn to when it comes to talking about things which are currently outside of the purview of science, which I believe a creator to be. Hence, when you said that you had scientific arguments for the existence of a creator, I was intrigued.

Regarding causation, I can only reiterate that this is an empirical fact of our sensory existence. Causality, as we experience it in our day to day lives, breaks down in the quantum realm. This is why Aquinian descriptions of the world are antediluvian. I mean not to diminish his statue as a thinker, but to say that this world view has been refuted by the natural sciences.

Regarding your Christianity, I do not believe we need to get into a lengthy talk about biblical stories to understand why you opted for subscription to this doctrine over others. You clearly chose Christianity over other religions, I am curious as to why. Did you explore other religions? If so, why did you reject them?

[Man of Steel]

That's the point, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it exists.

Saying what exists always has is not a stretch, suggesting a sentient being is creating universes out of magic is.

It just takes us right back to my first post in this thread. 

[pellius]

That's the point, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it exists.

Saying what exists always has is not a stretch, suggesting a sentient being is creating universes out of magic is.

OK, so you admit that something came from nothing. That may be so but that is outside the realm of modern, mainstream science which says very specifically that the universe had a beginning. It began 13.7 billion years ago.

Saying that a singularity, matter, always existed, means something came from nothing.

Now THAT'S magic.

[pellius]

It wasn't an explosion, you are being silly, the term bang has no bearing on the math of the theory,it's a mathematical theory.

None of the arguments were pain staking, you presented Aquinas and his rebutted rehashed argument, keep making these broad sweeping arguments that have no water, like serious, the term bang wasn't coined for nothing! can you explain anything you are talking about? you just keep saying science and using terms, which you keep mixing up.

OK, I'm not that invested in the term explosion. How about we call it the Big Expansion? Better?

It changes nothing.

What science has determined is the age of the universe and that it did have a beginning.

I explained everything I argue. Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The Law of Causality. There is nothing I can do if you don't recognize these arguments. Aquinas said that things move and they don't move without a cause. You don't believe this yet offer nothing by way of rebuttal, argument or proof. You just say so. I can quote Aquinas verbatim if I wanted to.  Perhaps you can present your theory, back by modern, mainstream science, making reference to specific laws of cosmology and we can compare both logic, reason and presentation.

I explained everything I argue. Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The Law of Causality.

Your turn. Present an argument how something came from nothing base on modern, mainstream science.

[pellius]

The law of causality is rejected in your premise as well, why are you allowed to side step your "LAW"? you also realize that expansion was acceleration, this is not an effect as per general relativity, no cause needed, hence the expansion needs no cause.

Your insistence on something existing outside of time and space is odd, give me one example of something that exists outside of time and space, one I can verify..... it's a philosophical argument, not scientific.

Just as an aside, and to preserve civility. Please stop using the phrases: "You do know...." and "You do realize..." and then state something that you think is common knowledge and that everyone agrees with when obviously I do not. It's condescending. If you have a point to make, just make it. No need to imply that it's something I should accept. I'll decide that.

Again the law of causality is sound. It eventually leads to a first cause. I know you think that a first cause needs a "first, first" cause but I don't. Neither does science. I presented a clear definition that I am consistent with.

My belief in something that exist outside of time is quite clear to me. I don't know why you think it is odd. It is a logical consequence from the determination by science that the universe: time, space and matter didn't always exist. It began 13.7 billion years ago. So it had to have a cause. And to "cause" time, "create" time, you have to have a creator that exists outside of time. If not, if, say a singularity always existed, then you have to believe that something (the singularity) came from nothing. You may be right. But I think that the idea that something came from nothing is far, far more preposterous, and requires such a giant leap of faith, far more of leap than I have to take.

I already gave you an example. We are repeating ourselves. It is obvious that nothing I say you will agree with. I'm OK with that. I would like you to make your own presentation and then we can compare logic, reason, science and presentation.

[pellius]

why is there anything? where did it come from? everything needs a cause right? it sure does, god did it son.

Who made god.... no one.... logic.

You seem annoyed. No need to be. What I believe has no effect on your life. Don't take it personally. These impasses have existed for as long as man pondered these questions and issues.

[Man of Steel]

OK, I'm not that invested in the term explosion. How about we call it the Big Expansion? Better?

It changes nothing.

What science has determined is the age of the universe and that it did have a beginning.

I explained everything I argue. Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The Law of Causality. There is nothing I can do if you don't recognize these arguments. Aquinas said that things move and they don't move without a cause. You don't believe this yet offer nothing by way of rebuttal, argument or proof. You just say so. I can quote Aquinas verbatim if I wanted to.  Perhaps you can present your theory, back by modern, mainstream science, making reference to specific laws of cosmology and we can compare both logic, reason and presentation.

I explained everything I argue. Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The Law of Causality.

Your turn. Present an argument how something came from nothing base on modern, mainstream science.

In the end, all that matters to most is that God is removed from everything.   Folks don't want or need God because in their own life they are god and they make the rules.

"God doesn't have a cause?!!  LOL ridiculous idea!  So God just is and that's it?!!  AAHAHAHA!!  Put down the goatherder myth book and join us in modern science there dullards LOL!!  No, no silly bibliotards, according to the laws of conservation and mass both energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed only transformed.  Therefore energy and matter are eternal and uncaused and the universe just is and always was."

Just swap "the universe" for God....it's that simple.

"God can't be the uncaused, personal, eternal creator, but an uncaused, eternal, impersonal universe that brought about everything via nothing, time and chance.....now that we can get behind!!"

This flies in the face of the predominance of scientific evidence that points to the universe having a beginning.  Einstein himself tried to overcome the "singualarity problem", but ended up amending his work and agreeing that the universe had a beginning.   The majority of Hawking's life work is about removing the "singularity problem".

So down the block is the majority of cosmology and physicists that say, "Well the universe appears to have a beginning.  And that beginning came about because of quantum fluctuations which produced the flat, expanding universe out of nothing.  You see, energy can spontaneously appear from no where so long as it does not last too long. It isn't created or destroyed, but it can appear out of nowhere.  Particles can pop up out of a vacuum so long as they do not have too large a mass or do not last too long. One might be inclined to dismiss all this as the wild imagination of physicists, but some things have been observed that require that interpretation."      

Atheists would all make fantastic lawyers because they take the law and either conform is to their needs or find loopholes within it.   They would also make wonderful magicians because their use of smoke and mirrors is second to none!  

And again, when it comes to loopholes and magic it comes down to one thing and one thing only.....removing God from their lives.  When God is introduced that mean no more adulterous sex, no more pornography, no more drunken parties, no more recreational drug use.....no more sin and a whole bunch of accountability for actions.  Can't have that!!

[pellius]

I believe philosophy is all you can turn to when it comes to talking about things which are currently outside of the purview of science, which I believe a creator to be. Hence, when you said that you had scientific arguments for the existence of a creator, I was intrigued.

Remember, I am not presenting proof or even evidence in the strictest sense. I am presenting an argument. And every argument I made made reference to a commonly accepted scientific principle.

Regarding causation, I can only reiterate that this is an empirical fact of our sensory existence. Causality, as we experience it in our day to day lives, breaks down in the quantum realm. This is why Aquinian descriptions of the world are antediluvian. I mean not to diminish his statue as a thinker, but to say that this world view has been refuted by the natural sciences.

Can you show where natural science has rejected the principle that things don't move without a cause? The law of Causality is  fundamental principle of all natural science. You're giving your opinion which is fine but it is outside the realm of science.

Regarding your Christianity, I do not believe we need to get into a lengthy talk about biblical stories to understand why you opted for subscription to this doctrine over others. You clearly chose Christianity over other religions, I am curious as to why. Did you explore other religions? If so, why did you reject them?

No we don't. It is far, far more involved and requires more leaps of faith, and I am not a Biblical Scholar. And I know that no matter what I say it won't make one whit of difference. Suffice to say that I am not too keen on the Muslim faith and though I'm a big fan of Moses I believe that Christ existed, believed the historical accounts and therefore believe he was the Son of God.

People have no problem believing that Socrates existed and the accounts of his life but not about Jesus in which there is far more evidence and support.

[pellius]

In the end, all that matters to most is that God is removed from everything.   Folks don't want or need God because in their own life they are god and they make the rules.

"God doesn't have a cause?!!  LOL ridiculous idea!  So God just is and that's it?!!  AAHAHAHA!!  Put down the goatherder myth book and join us in modern science there dullards LOL!!  No, no silly bibliotards, according to the laws of conservation and mass both energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed only transformed.  Therefore energy and matter are eternal and uncaused and the universe just is and always was."

Just swap "the universe" for God....it's that simple.

"God can't be the uncaused, personal, eternal creator, but an uncaused, eternal, impersonal universe that brought about everything via nothing, time and chance.....now that we can get behind!!"

This flies in the face of the predominance of scientific evidence that points to the universe having a beginning.  Einstein himself tried to overcome the "singualarity problem", but ended up amending his work and agreeing that the universe had a beginning.   The majority of Hawking's life work is about removing the "singularity problem".

So down the block is the majority of cosmology and physicists that say, "Well the universe appears to have a beginning.  And that beginning came about because of quantum fluctuations which produced the flat, expanding universe out of nothing.  You see, energy can spontaneously appear from no where so long as it does not last too long. It isn't created or destroyed, but it can appear out of nowhere.  Particles can pop up out of a vacuum so long as they do not have too large a mass or do not last too long. One might be inclined to dismiss all this as the wild imagination of physicists, but some things have been observed that require that interpretation."      

Atheists would all make fantastic lawyers because they take the law and either conform is to their needs or find loopholes within it.   They would also make wonderful magicians because their use of smoke and mirrors is second to none!  

And again, when it comes to loopholes and magic it comes down to one thing and one thing only.....removing God from their lives.  When God is introduced that mean no more adulterous sex, no more pornography, no more drunken parties, no more recreational drug use.....no more sin and a whole bunch of accountability for actions.  Can't have that!!

There has historically been an adversarial relationship between science and religion. The atheist associate themselves with science and therefore have a lock on reason and logic. The theist are the ones that believe in fantasy. They base their belief on emotion and blind faith.

Perhaps I will come at this from a different angel based on a post earlier in this thread. I will argue that  as science has advanced the case for a Creator grows stronger and stronger.

But it requires some work and research as there is a lot of math involved.

[Man of Steel]

There has historically been an adversarial relationship between science and religion. The atheist associate themselves with science and therefore have a lock on reason and logic. The theist are the ones that believe in fantasy. They base their belief on emotion and blind faith.

Are you simply stating the general nonbeliever consensus with this statement?

[Necrosis]

OK, so you admit that something came from nothing. That may be so but that is outside the realm of modern, mainstream science which says very specifically that the universe had a beginning. It began 13.7 billion years ago.

Saying that a singularity, matter, always existed, means something came from nothing.

Now THAT'S magic.

No I don't, I agree with aquinas, something is clearly eternal, I suggest energy is and no god is needed. Something has always existed.

Energy always existing is something not nothing, you are just regurgitating arguments without thinking now.

The age of the universe is based off of redshift and the idea that things are rapidly seperating at which point they were together, so all the matter just poofed into existence? where did it all come from if it wasn't already there? god's matter factory?

[Necrosis]

Just as an aside, and to preserve civility. Please stop using the phrases: "You do know...." and "You do realize..." and then state something that you think is common knowledge and that everyone agrees with when obviously I do not. It's condescending. If you have a point to make, just make it. No need to imply that it's something I should accept. I'll decide that.

Again the law of causality is sound. It eventually leads to a first cause. I know you think that a first cause needs a "first, first" cause but I don't. Neither does science. I presented a clear definition that I am consistent with.

My belief in something that exist outside of time is quite clear to me. I don't know why you think it is odd. It is a logical consequence from the determination by science that the universe: time, space and matter didn't always exist. It began 13.7 billion years ago. So it had to have a cause. And to "cause" time, "create" time, you have to have a creator that exists outside of time. If not, if, say a singularity always existed, then you have to believe that something (the singularity) came from nothing. You may be right. But I think that the idea that something came from nothing is far, far more preposterous, and requires

such a giant leap of faith, far more of leap than I have to take.

I already gave you an example. We are repeating ourselves. It is obvious that nothing I say you will agree with. I'm OK with that. I would like you to make your own presentation and then we can compare logic, reason, science and presentation.

moving at the speed of light time ceases to exist, the singularity would have atoms moving as fast as light, hence it's timeless, this is the point of the singularity, the mate breaks down, it's a singularity.

Expansion in General relativity is not an effect, meaning no cause needed. Not to mention it has been highlights over and over that the law of causality does not apply to the quantum world, how things actually work is different. The human mind is a shitty tool for the universe, UV has given us far more information then all the introspection in the world.

Nothing exists outside of time, existence is a temporal concept, you are using the terms (as others have pointed out) in a non-sensical fashion.

You fail to see the logical pitfall in your argument, everything needs a cause, as an infinite regress would form (nevermind the other options) so the only way to avoid this is a creator that exists outside of time and space, this avoids all the messy stuff like logic and fact and just gives us a neat answer!!! God did it, what caused god you asked? logic doesn't apply here (see how logical I am), god doesn't conform to logic, to cause, to time, he is the answer that requires no explanation and is infinitely more complex then the universe.

[Necrosis]

I can't, nor can anyone else, prove the existence of God, but I can present some rational arguments, some based on science, that the belief in God is not based on just blind faith and emotion.

Thomas Aquinas, whom nobody can credibly regard as unintelligent, made the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. But whatever cause that movement had to be caused by something else. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. An unmoved mover. Everything that begins must have a cause.  Nothing comes from nothing. So if there is no creator there can't be a creation, i.e. a universe.

But what if the universe is infinitely old? I remember Carl Sagan in the origin "Cosmos" aired in 1980 (I'm old) argued, an argument that I agreed with at the time, said that either a God always existed or the universe always existed. He was just eliminating one extra step. He had no need for God. Matter was his

 god.

Well, all SCIENTIST now agree that the universe is not infinitely old. The universe had a beginning - a Big Bang. And if the universe had a beginning then it




didn't always exist. It didn't have to exist. And if things don't have to exist then it must have cause.

And there is some confirmation of this from science, from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter came into existence around 13.7 billion years ago.

Now add to this premise a second, very LOGICAL, premise of the principle of causality. That nothing begins without a cause  and you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang there must be a, well, "Big Banger"..

But does that mean that this "Big Banger" is the Creator? Why can't it be just another universe? Well, according to Einstein all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billions years ago SO DID ALL TIME.

So there is no time before the Big Bang. But say there is time before the Big Bang, That you want to reject the laws of General Relativity and still claim the mantle of rationalism. That, say, there are "multi-verses" with many Big Bangs. That, too, must have a beginning. And it is this absolute beginning that most people mean by a Creator. Yet some Atheist find the existence of an infinite number of universes more rational than the existence of a Creator even though there is no, zero, empirical evidence than any of these unknown universes exist.

All time began at the big bang, asking what caused the big bang is non-sensical as is suggesting time before the point when time began. You are crushing it!!


So everything needs a cause but god, got it. makes perfect sense. Again could you give me one example of something outside of space and time? this is a scientific position after all, how can I verify your creator besides your gypsy logic?